|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: Fate of California's concealed carry law rests on Supreme Court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As sheriff, and the chief law enforcement officer of San Diego County, I am proud to be a part of the executive branch, whose responsibility it is to enforce the law regardless of personal beliefs. The executive branch is an important pillar of our democracy and the responsibility of being a member of it is something that I take very seriously.
The case of Peruta v. California et al. involved applicants who were denied licenses to obtain concealed carry permits because they failed to establish “good cause,” as required by California law. California’s legislative branch has clearly required that “good cause” be proved prior to the issuance of a license to carry a concealed firearm. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(5/5/2017)
|
| So you can't read. Have someone read the 2nd amendment to you. Also I am glad you are proud to be a part of the executive branch that is against the very foundation of this nation. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(5/5/2017)
|
| And if the California Legislature passed a law directing you to invade the homes of your citizens without warrants and seize their property, would you and your tan-shirted (just a pale version of brown) deputies do just that? |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/5/2017)
|
Xqqsme:
Only if it allowed him to rape the daughters while he was there. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
